A question of ethics

[summaron]

I have lately been wondering about all the endless photo taking at museums ...

At museums there are often no-photography rules, and museums are semi-public institutions-- you pay to get in -- so there are guidelines as part of the deal. But also museums are quiet, meditative spaces where one goes to see the final stage of the photographic process -- the prints, and paintings, of masters -- unimpeded by earlier stages, such as ongoing shooting.

At gallery openings there seems to be a different etiquette -- it's a bit of a celebration and people do take pictures of each other and the works -- but they seem to do so in tune with what the others are doing.

I shall probably be taking a few pictures at the San Francisco Ballet Gala because people sort of expect that and dress up for the occasion and there are all sorts of fun juxtapositions of dress and grand architectural detail (but the overheard comments are really the best part).

I don't think photographers these days have the entitlements they once seemed to have had -- they're much more situationally variable -- and it's part of the art of photography to sense the borderlines, with perhaps an occasional discrete and artful transgression or two.

 

[sanmich]

1- I'm with you, and I wouldn't allow a picture of them taken at school without my knowledge.
2- If my kids are taken to a museum, I don't expect the museum to be emptied before, so the rules of school can be applied there. What exactly do you mean by "I cannot allow..."?? No offense, but I don't think you are in a position to allow or not allow...
3- The best you can do, is go to the photographer, presenting yourself, and kindly ask not to photograph the kdis faces. If the answer and behavior is really strange, and the guy continues to deliberately shoot the kids and only the kids, I would turn to the only ones that can allow or not, the museum guards.

Cheers

I'm on two sides here. As a photographer, I want to take the picture, but as a teacher of 6-7 year olds I am of a different view. Several of the children in my class are either in the care system or on the child protection register for one reason or another. I cannot allow photographs of these children to be taken as it could compromise their safety. This is not about weirdo photographers but about the people who might see the photos. It is fun to make this a political issue (which it may be in this instance) but there might also be practical issues to consider. As for her being rude - well we're not all like that!

 

[wayneb]

When she said "you never know what some people are going to use photographs of you for" clearly she had in mind "some people" that use their photographs to engage in ethics discussions on the internet.

 

[Roger Hicks]

1- I'm with you, and I wouldn't allow a picture of them taken at school without my knowledge.
2- If my kids are taken to a museum, I don't expect the museum to be emptied before, so the rules of school can be applied there. What exactly do you mean by "I cannot allow..."?? No offense, but I don't think you are in a position to allow or not allow...
3- The best you can do, is go to the photographer, presenting yourself, and kindly ask not to photograph the kdis faces. If the answer and behavior is really strange, and the guy continues to deliberately shoot the kids and only the kids, I would turn to the only ones that can allow or not, the museum guards.

Cheers

Dear Michael,

The question is, of course, who is in a position to 'allow or not allow'.

In the real world, there's always give and take.

But the first time I was asked not to take pictures of children (playing baseball in a dead-end back lane in NYC), I asked, in genuine astonishment, "Why not? What could be more heart-warming, more quintessentially American, than playing baseball in a back alley?"

Or indeeed than kids learning about art in a public museum?

What sort of society do we want to see? One where children are property, subect to the whims of whatever adult who thinks he/she is In Charge, or one in which children learn that there are conflicting interests which are not always resolved by an Authority Figure? For that matter, one in which photographers are Evil Paedophile Terrorists?

Of course this post is not an attack on you. It merely borrows your words as a jumping-off point. But when I started teaching in about '74, no-one, pupils, staff or parents, took it amiss that I almost always had a camera with me, with which I took may (usually not very good) pictures. Mostly, in those days, it was a IIIa with collapsible Elmar.

Why has public perception changed so much in what the French call the Anglo-Saxon countries? I lay it at the foot of the gutter press and the climate of fear which they, and most Anglo-Saxon governments since, have so assiduously cultivated. Their attitude can be summed up as WE ARE THE MASTERS! WE KNOW BEST! DO AS YOU ARE TOLD OR YOU WILL BE MURDERED BY TERRORISTS AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL BE RAPED!

Cheers,

R.

 

[wgerrard]

What sort of society do we want to see? One where children are property, subect to the whims of whatever adult who thinks he/she is In Charge, or one in which children learn that there are conflicting interests which are not always resolved by an Authority Figure? For that matter, one in which photographers are Evil Paedophile Terrorists?

Roger, I know that's a rhetorical question. There are, however, instances in which a right to take photos conflicts with legitimate concern about a child being photographed, reasons that have nothing to do with pedophiles. E.g., abusive parents hire detectives to find kids they have lost custody of in divorces cases; a spouse and his/her children relocate and even assume a new identity to avoid abuse, or worse. If you and your kids are, in essence, hiding from someone who has done you harm, then being photographed by strangers is cause for concern.

I am dubious of the notion that arguing about photographers' rights with a person who doesn't want to photographed is going to accomplish much. The chance the argument will persuade that person to change their mind is, I think, effectively nil.

That doesn't mean we should not assert our rights, which the OP did. But, the assertion of the right is the taking of the photo, not the arguing.

 

[rbiemer]

I am dubious of the notion that arguing about photographers' rights with a person who doesn't want to photographed is going to accomplish much. The chance the argument will persuade that person to change their mind is, I think, effectively nil.

That doesn't mean we should not assert our rights, which the OP did. But, the assertion of the right is the taking of the photo, not the arguing.

(emphasis added)
II think you are right in this assessment, BUT I think the argument/debate/elucidation of those rights, particulalry if conducted in a reasoned manner will educate any other bystanders--the students present in this case--and hopefully those folks will be less inclined to object to a photographer in future encounters.
In other words, the argument isn't to convince your opponent but to convince your audience, I think.
Rob

 

[wgerrard]

(emphasis added)
II think you are right in this assessment, BUT I think the argument/debate/elucidation of those rights, particulalry if conducted in a reasoned manner will educate any other bystanders--the students present in this case--and hopefully those folks will be less inclined to object to a photographer in future encounters.
In other words, the argument isn't to convince your opponent but to convince your audience, I think.
Rob

I understand that position, although it does assume an audience. It also assumes an "opponent" who is in a position to change their mind. Anyone paid to keep you from taking pictures -- security guards, etc. -- is going to keep on doing exactly that. I think a better approach would be to proselytize the institution's owners or managers, that is, the people who set policy. I suspect that in many cases regarding public and quasi-public buildings, no rules will be found to exist.

The definition of "public", in relation to photography, seems fuzzy to me. What constitutes a public facility? How does it vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction? A public school is a public facility, but few would claim the right to wonder through a school and take random photos. Tax funding is often cited as an indicator of public-ness, yet many tax-finded facilities are off limits. And, what about facilities that are partially tax funded? Is my local NPR radio station fractionally a public facility because a small percentage of its funding is tax-based? If a museum, for example, is 100 percent privately funded, but open to the public, can it ban photography?

In any case, if I did not want to be photographed, I would expect my preference to trump the photographer's rights. Just a matter of politeness.

 

[BillP]

This was a class in session in a quiet semi-private place...

What on EARTH is a "semi-private place"? I would love to see the statute that enshrines our right to "semi-privacy"...

Regards,

Bill

 

[Roger Hicks]

In any case, if I did not want to be photographed, I would expect my preference to trump the photographer's rights. Just a matter of politeness.

Dear Bill,

So would mass murderers, rapists, politicians, and celebrities who didn't feel like being photographed at the time.

I realize that this comes dangerously close to absolutism, but either you can take a picture without asking, or you can't. To me, the evils of having to ask permission of everyone who might think they are in shot (even if they aren't) far outweigh the evils of being photographed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[degruyl]

In any case, if I did not want to be photographed, I would expect my preference to trump the photographer's rights. Just a matter of politeness.

Ignoring the fact that you are already being photographed?

In most public spaces, including privately owned museums and office buildings (not necessarily including the office spaces, but including lobbies) you are definitely being caught by a camera. Streets and subways, parks and playgrounds, and every time you walk past an ATM.

The difference is whether a person is directing a visible camera.

How do these cameras know when a person does not want to be filmed?

The only question is whether the owner of a place allows other people to photograph, and what the rules for photography are. (such as: no tripods). If there is no owner (public space), then all forms of photography are allowed.

Rules for the use of said photographs are more strict.

I agree that there is no reason to take someone's picture if they clearly do not want you to, but you do not have to ask permission.

Just don't photograph through windows, climb trees to see over walls, or anything like that: that is an invasion of privacy. The "expectation of privacy" is the big decider in terms of whether photography of people is allowed. Telephoto lenses also can get you into trouble here.

 

[MartinL]

Just a matter of politeness.

Always a good default position when law and ethics are murky. 🙂

I do not take photos if I have any clue that the subject objects, especially discretionary shots that bear only on my putative "Art." I can see an exception for on-assignment journalism because there is a presumed professional code they work under that sets a higher threshold for responsibility than that of the typical camera carrier. Another exception would be for a high-stakes photo; for example, if a teacher were beating children instead of just boring them.🙂

I love taking photos in museums. I waited some time for this shot, and was standing and framing in a corner before the 3 women showed up.
http://www.pbase.com/mnl/image/110669237
And here's a shot of a reluctant subject taken some hours later.
http://www.pbase.com/mnl/image/110669239

 

[wgerrard]

Dear Bill,

So would mass murderers, rapists, politicians, and celebrities who didn't feel like being photographed at the time.

I realize that this comes dangerously close to absolutism, but either you can take a picture without asking, or you can't. To me, the evils of having to ask persmission of everyone who might think they are in shot (even if they aren't) far outweigh the evils of being photographed.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, I'm don't mean to suggest that photographers be required to ask permission of anyone who thinks they're in the shot. I only mean to say that if I don't want my picture taken, I'll say so, even if I know the photographer has every right to take it. Regardless of his rights, I'd hope the photographer would at least consider my request, as I do when the positions are reversed. The photographer can respond politely or rudely and move on, or respond politely or rudely and take the shot. Polite is better.

Or, I can move out of range, if that's possible.

I guess I'm saying that threats to photographer rights come from policy either set or left unclear by governments and institutions, not from random individuals who don't want their picture taken.

 

[wgerrard]

I spent a day in the British Museum recently. It was busy with young school kids, sprawled out on floors with sketch pads, and assorted adorable little kids in and out of their strollers.

Took two pictures, neither of kids.

I've seen some great photos taken in museums, but most times I eventually regret dragging my camera along. If the other visitors are more interesting than the exhibits, I'm in the wrong museum.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, I'm don't mean to suggest that photographers be required to ask permission of anyone who thinks they're in the shot. I only mean to say that if I don't want my picture taken, I'll say so, even if I know the photographer has every right to take it. Regardless of his rights, I'd hope the photographer would at least consider my request, as I do when the positions are reversed. The photographer can respond politely or rudely and move on, or respond politely or rudely and take the shot. Polite is better.
.

Dear Bill,

We agree completely. It's just that very seldom has anyone objected until after I've taken a picture. If they indicate 'no', because I'm slow in setting up, as far as I recall, I have almost always respected their wishes. Except perhaps for the guy in Bristol who was selling the Socialist Worker newspaper, because he was a pompous prat. And McDo (see below).

But what do you do after the fact? To quote a line from a poem by Cath Milne, "flash them a travelling smile, and run..."

There was one occasion in France when a woman got really bent out of shape because she thought I might have taken a picture of a corner of her caravan! I was taking an illustration pic of a the toilet-and-shower block of a municipal camp site for www.semiadventuroustraveller.com, with absolutely no one in shot, from the public road. Her overwrought response has coloured my view, as did that of the McDonalds manager in Essex who complained to the police that I 'might have been taking pictures' (the two Leicas around my neck may have been a giveaway). I hadn't taken any pics of McDo until after the police asked me what I was doing (and were perfectly happy with my answer). Then I took several.

Nowadays, I am increasingly inclined to believe that those who complain the most are those with with the least grasp on reality.

As for pictures in museums and galleries (and indeed on the street as well), there are quite a lot of mine in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/arles 2009.html

Cheers,

R.

 

[MartinL]

I spent a day in the British Museum recently. It was busy with young school kids, sprawled out on floors with sketch pads, and assorted adorable little kids in and out of their strollers.

Took two pictures, neither of kids.

I've seen some great photos taken in museums, but most times I eventually regret dragging my camera along. If the other visitors are more interesting than the exhibits, I'm in the wrong museum.

Another way of looking at it: Museum offerings and art generally have a dynamic and reflexive relationship with their settings and viewers. When I think of a museum or gallery as a "public space," "public" is an element integral to whatever hangs on the wall.

 

[wgerrard]

Roger, I agree that most folks don't know you've taken their picture until you've done it, or they think you have. Most times I usually smile and move on. I've never had anyone chase me down, but I have had a few folks in out-of-the way places ask for money.

Unless someone has a specific legal reason to avoid being photographed, the response is driven by emotions and, hence, unpredictable.

[EDIT: On a nonphotography note, years ago I was driving on a narrow street in Reading, in the UK. A woman, parked illegally along the left, opened her driver's side car door into traffic just as I drove by. Her door barely touched the left side of my car. I pulled over and started to speak with her, thinking we'd exchange insurance information. Obviously not a happy soul, she didn't speak until she opened and closed her door a few times to determine it had not been damaged. Then, she looked at me, listened as if for the first time, and said, "Oh, you're an American. Just leave!" And I did, with my newly scratched car. Who knows how people are going to react? Sometimes the best course is to let them stew in the own juices.]


Re: Museums -- If I'm in a museum I like, I find that keeping an eye out for photo opportunities distracts me from appreciating the exhibits, and vice versa. So much for my multitasking. Lots of great photos happen in museums.

 

[George S.]

At least here in the US, many states have enacted laws to protect children. This is a different issue than a photographer's "rights" nor does it have anything to do with common sense, the Patriot Act or anything else. Child molesters have in fact been known in many many cases to have taken photos of potential victims.

As previously mentioned, schools do have parents sign off on a photography waiver which allows teachers to take photos or a photo to be printed in a newspaper for educational reasons. That teacher was probably perfectly in her right to tell you "No Photos". What if she told you that she didn't want a photo to be taken of her? Wouldn't you respect her wish?

 

[Roger Hicks]

At least here in the US, many states have enacted laws to protect children. This is a different issue than a photographer's "rights" nor does it have anything to do with common sense, the Patriot Act or anything else. Child molesters have in fact been known in many many cases to have taken photos of potential victims.

As previously mentioned, schools do have parents sign off on a photography waiver which allows teachers to take photos or a photo to be printed in a newspaper for educational reasons. That teacher was probably perfectly in her right to tell you "No Photos". What if she told you that she didn't want a photo to be taken of her? Wouldn't you respect her wish?

Dear George,

How many cases? Or is this just alarmism spread by the gutter press? Levels of child molestation have been fairly stable for decades but this does not make for interesting, aka fear-spreading, news.

I suspect that this is anecdotal evidence from a very few cases. I'm not calling you a liar; just wondering how closely you have verified your sources.

Cheers,

R.

 

[wgerrard]

At least here in the US, many states have enacted laws to protect children. Child molesters have in fact been known in many many cases to have taken photos of potential victims....

As previously mentioned, schools do have parents sign off on a photography waiver which allows teachers to take photos or a photo to be printed in a newspaper for educational reasons. That teacher was probably perfectly in her right to tell you "No Photos". What if she told you that she didn't want a photo to be taken of her? Wouldn't you respect her wish?

The statement that "Child molesters have in fact been known in many many cases to have taken photos of potential victims." cannot and should not be flipped on its head to mean 'Photographers are potential child molesters". That is as ridiculous and as dangerous as saying "Almost all child molesters drive cars", therefore "All car drivers are potential molesters".

Few rights are absolute. Most come with conditions that restrict their exercise in certain circumstances. The right to take photos in a public place -- tantamount to using your eyes in a public place -- is one of those rights.

The teacher in the OP was within her rights to ask that the photo not be taken. But, unless the institution had posted such a policy at the door or taken other steps to insure visitors were aware of it, she was not within her rights to demand it not be taken. In addition, those students appear to of age and off campus.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The statement that "Child molesters have in fact been known in many many cases to have taken photos of potential victims." cannot and should not be flipped on its head to mean 'Photographers are potential child molesters". That is as ridiculous and as dangerous as saying "Almost all child molesters drive cars", therefore "All car drivers are potential molesters".

Few rights are absolute. Most come with conditions that restrict their exercise in certain circumstances. The right to take photos in a public place -- tantamount to using your eyes in a public place -- is one of those rights.

The teacher in the OP was within her rights to ask that the photo not be taken. But, unless the institution had posted such a policy at the door or taken other steps to insure visitors were aware of it, she was not within her rights to demand it not be taken. In addition, those students appear to of age and off campus.

Dear Bill,

Well stated.

And of course we all know that 95% of heroin users started on coffee...

Cheers,

R.